Where might one find a refutation of Vasubandhu and Yogacara, as devastating as Betty and others papers on Nagarjuna?

[ekocare]

@Ceisiwr

If though the earth element is only “hardness” then it is merely a quality of experience. How then can a quality of experience cause other qualities to rise? How can a number of different qualities come together to produce objects? If the earth element has no mass, no substance, no form and no shape and is merely the experience of “hardness” then how is it matter?

To understand Dhammas, Classical Theravada Texts recommends a way called “lakkhana-rasa-paccupatthana-padatthana”. Using this way, one can understand dhammas properly.

1. Lakkhana/ sabhava = Characteristic/ Nature
2. Rasa = Function ( kicca rasa = function; sampatti rasa = result of function)
3. Paccupatthana/ upathana akara = The way the wisdom understands the dhamma/ The way the dhamma attends to mind
4. Padatthana/ asanna karana = Base/ Immediate cause

The dhammas have other capabilities that are not described by it’s characteristic.

(References: Abhidhamma commentaries, Abhidhammavatara and its tika, Visuddhimgga and its tika, Ledi sayadaw’s manuals)

@Ceisiwr

Essentially, I struggle to see how you go from the direct experience to “the earth element truly exists independent of mind” and I struggle to see how mere qualities of experience, which the dhammas are reduced to in Theravāda, can be objective and how they can act causally on each other through sustaining each other, destroying each other etc.

If we consider the first two points of the above classification of the Earth element (if my memory and English are correct):

1. Nature: Hardness (kakkhalatta)
2. Function: Being the ground or refuge to other bhutas (Patitthana)
3. Way of attending: Accepting (Sampaticchana) other bhutas
4. Base: Remaining three bhutas (avasesa bhutattaya)

somewhere I found “Bearing (sandharana)” has used interchangeably for the Lakkhana and Rasa both.

So, Pathavi can be taken as “bearing” or “containing” or “accepting” as well. (bearer, container, accepter)

If we take Pathavi as something like “Hardness that bears and accepts other rupas”, I think, we can understand it well.

@Ceisiwr

I should say I think its right to reduce physical objects to mere qualities, to remove substance from our experience, but it seems without substance we can’t really talk about a truly existing anything.

Why do we need a substance? In the sense of Paramattha, we talk about pentads(of khandas) and octads (of rupas) etc.

@Ceisiwr

in Theravāda when people think a bomb went off and houses were destroyed, they aren’t truly seeing reality.

In Paramattha language, we can say “Certain setting of octads went off and surrounding octads were destroyed” or “Certain setting of rupas went off and surrounding rupas were destroyed”.

@Ceisiwr

In reality there is only “hardness, heat, sound, colour” etc. The question then remains as to how sensory qualities can cause explosions?

Those are not taken as merely sensory qualities. They have other capabilities as shown above.
eg:

1. Characteristic of Heat: Hotness (unhatta)
2. Function of Heat: Ripening (paripacana), burning (paridahana) …
3. Way of attending of Heat: Softening other bhutas (maddavanuppadana)
4. Base of Heat: Remaining three bhutas (avasesa bhutattaya)

Tejo can be called “Ripening” or “Burning” or “Heat that ripens and burns” …etc.
In other words Tejo is ripener or burner.

@Ceisiwr

Another thing that I wonder about rupa-kalapas is if anything which is made of parts is unreal, how are they real since they are made of parts?

“Anything which is made of parts” is not taken as unreal. (Paramattha collections are considered close to paramattha)
The perception of Oneness/ compactness (ghana) is considered unreal.

I heard one Abhidhamma master insisting “A collection/group of realities are not unreal (it is close to real)”.
eg: FiveKhadhas, PureOctad etc.

@Ceisiwr

Do we need to accept such things really exist externally in order to understand the impermanence of conditioned dhammas?

It is like saying "Do we need to accept such things really exist externally in order to understand the impermanence of conditioned realities?

The definition of Dhammas is Realities.

@Ceisiwr

I recently read something interesting, again from Ledi Sayadaw. He argues that you do not really need to see the momentariness of mental dhammas, and that it’s actually impossible to do so (apart for Buddhas, of course)

I think this Ledi Sayadaws quote is about the people who try to see the actual speed of impermanence.

I remember Ven. Maggavihari discussed the following points.

• "One doesn’t need to see the actual rupa kalapas. The requirement is understanding characteristics of dhammas."
• "One doesn’t need to see the actual speed of impermanence. The requirement is understanding impermanence."
• "One doesn’t need to see the actual present moment. No mind-moment can see itself. When we see the present moment, it has already been past. There are 3 types of present moments mentioned in Patisambhidamagga and last 2 are long present-moments."

@Zans

Further, the Buddha declared that consciousness depends on a dyad. The sense must make contact with a physical object before consciousness can arise. Thus, the physical object must exist, and cannot be some kind of subjective event.

Yes, it is a good proof I think.

“Cakkhunca paticca rupeca uppajjati cakkhuvinnanam”.

Here the Cakkhu, Rupa and Cakkhuvinnana are shown as 3 distinct dhammas.
Experience is Cakkhuvinnana.
If one takes there are only experiences, then there is only Cakkhuvinnana.

@Ceisiwr

As to what is outside of this All, well, the Buddha said not to bother thinking about if there even is such a thing.

Do you believe that the Buddha said not to bother thinking about if there are objective dhammas or not?

@zerotime

Our immediate knowledge about something existent, the experience, it will arise because the mind endow of an space (“out there” = “out from me”). Despite the space is not contained in the experience itself (hardness) but it is something arising in the mind, in order we can know hardness or whatever.

I think this is about Rupas. What about the existence of Nama dhammas?

One Abhidhamma master said,

• Rupas are seen along with Avakasa-pannatti (concept of space)
• Namas are seen along with Kala-pannatti (concept of time)

(In one sense Rupas also seen along with Kala-pannatti.)